4 ms·
They already have Scheme based config files and I'd say it is simpler that Lua.
by imjonse 2y ago
They already have Scheme based config files and I'd say it is simpler that Lua.
- brabel 2y agoIt can't really be simpler than Lua, come'on. Maybe if you already know Lisp, but for people who know C-like languages (Java, Javascript, C++) Lua should be much more "obvious".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- petre 2y agoWhat are you talking about? It uses TOML for config files and some S-expressions for queries, which is actually a consequence of using tree sitter. https://docs.helix-editor.com/configuration.html https://docs.helix-editor.com/configuration.html
- imjonse 2y agoI should have specified internal config files for the runtime queries that you mention. Those are .scm files.
- _7tgr 2y agoI wouldn't really count that as editor config. Every editor with treesitter support will have configs for treesitter, for instance: https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter/blob/master/queries/ada/highlights.scm https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter/blob/mast...
- imjonse 2y agoMy comment is in the context of 'their own Scheme implementation'. Since they already handle some .scm files internally it's not that wild to pick Scheme over other languages as the base for plugins. It's a power user editor, Scheme should not scare them.